"Shrinkage," as a tool in the abstract, appears to now be in unfortunate vogue for We The People in 2012, as Obama and the Progressives continue their carpe annum assault on virtually any and everything appearing even remotely sacrosanct within America, these days. Well, except, of course, for those true problems devastatingly plaguing the US, that actually are not sacrosanct issues at all, at least not according to the Obamaphibians.

Indeed, across each and every single front, shrinkage seems to rule the day, as the solely-expansive Obama administration slithers its way to an ignominious ending in 2012. The White House outrageously outdid even itself, this time, having effectively shrunk our religious Liberties in its incessant and ongoing meddling in non-problems, even while setting the entirety of Christendom on its ear with its edict to the Catholic Church on reproductive issues. As Mike Huckabee stated, with melee at apex, "we all our Catholics now," and indeed we certainly are, albeit ironically.

However, and as usual, the Axis Press, of course, came surging to the Presidents stipulatory rescue, even here, after the President, absorbing withering fire from virtually every religious institution known to man, decided to "Uh"...quickly change the required offering of every reproductive control device available, from being a required offering by the Church to now being offered by the Church's insurance companies and voila, problem solved, um...NOT.

The First Dietary Lady

Now, this shell-game ploy response by the White House, having totally missed the Clouseu-ish mal-intellect of the Mainstream Media, would be about the same as arguing that a credit card company pays for all charge card purchases, rather than the consumer, which is true, but only at first, of course. We all defacto know who ends up paying in the end, and in spades, to be sure, except of course for the Axis Press, which effectively gains traction after noting their increasingly miserable financials. However, this type of shrinkage, once again, is a word that lamentably inspires fear, if not loathing, to a preponderance of "man-kind," while fomenting a palpable terror on its destabilizing effects to the vast collective of man's governments all over the globe.

Even while most women, especially the First Dietary Lady, find either unparalleled joy, on the one hand for themselves on the vagaries of the word shrinkage, or great mirth, on the other, as it can be applied to their anxious menfolk, shrinkage even here carries palpable weight. But, ironic, indeed it is, that women will spend billions on diet pills and the like, in order to induce and even magnify the effects of shrinkage on their bodies, while men will spend still more billions on inarguably useless alchemies, mitigating the damnable effects of shrinkage on their maladjusted love torpedoes, ahem.

In fact, just think of either the proliferation or mitigation by human-kind towards shrinkage, or its opposite, as being much like the Colonel's secret recipe, bearing at least eleven secret herbs and spices, but only as applied to diminufied male members, well-rounded feminine physiques, or even Cloward-Piven spending plans induced by the Messianic Marxist, himself, rather than just succulently fried poultry.

So, what about the inclusion of world Governments in this case?

Well, at least in America's case, a cunning and crafty Government will take great pains in order to essentially hide the effects of shrinkage within its increasingly jaundiced economy of errors, while joyfully proliferating a shrinking of its subjects' liberties, as in our recent case of religious freedom, to an alarming degree. Just think of Obama's efforts at manufacturing descriptive formulas which effectively mask economic shrinkage, or Liberty's depletion, as yet another, almost comical, form of magical elixir that conveniently camouflages what is actually happening in our nation.

Even while a host of economic indicators will easily counter what both the media and the Obamaphibians have termed a rousing bit of positive unemployment data, recently. The doctored data in question, being a reduction in US unemployment to 8.3%, would seem to denote an economy that's expanding, despite all evidence to the contrary. In fact, if one were to seemingly take millions of jobs away while also noting the vast number of unemployed, within that same paradigm being used, we could still conceivably end up with an 8.3 % unemployment rate, despite only one third of the nation actually being employed. The White House has become quite adept at abstracting the facts to such a degree that no one can see the absurdity in the ongoing results.

Which brings us to our dear, old friend in the Axis Press, being self-proclaimed racial protagonist and haughty Liberal, Leonard Pitts,who wishes us to learn a lesson or two regarding Conservative Ronald Reagan's legacy, of all things; I kid you not. Truthfully, Pitts, I must say, a screaming Liberal such as yourself preaching to the American people on Ronald Reagan's legacy is about the same as the murderous Wayne Gacy preaching to us on common sense child care. Somehow it just doesn't pass the smell test; however, it's still worth a look, if only for comedic effect.

Scorpions For Breakfast, Marxists for Lunch

In Pitts' article titled, "Looking for Morning in America," Pitts takes issue with the fact that the tiny little Governor from Arizona, Jan Brewer, actually used her finger in making a gesture or point to the President while on a tarmac in Arizona. Now, first of all, when I say,"uses her finger in making a gesture or point," many might be wondering if the Governor was using the same finger that most Conservative Americans, and now even Catholic Bishops use when the Messiah magically appears on their television screens every 7.65 minutes, on average, to piously preach veiled Leftist B.S. to us, once again, even while ignoring the ruination that is occurring all around us.

However, the answer is no, indeed, Brewer did not actually fly her pointy little bird at the President, which is amazing in and of itself considering the amount of meddling that the President has done within her state. I mean, come on, Obama has consistently bedeviled most law enforcement offices in Arizona, with a very special hat-tip to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who finds someone from the US government in his office on most days, in addition to a lengthy list of insults, in other areas. But not only that, Obama and his Department of Obstruction , is yet in the process of suing both the state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer, herself, for overseeing Arizona's dastardly deed of audaciously trying to enforce US immigration law, against the government's wishes.

So, what did Obama expect anyway, a medal, for Heaven's sake?

In fact, it would have taken an existential amount of pontifical holy grace, for most of us to have even shown up in order to greet the Tawny Titanic, in Obama, had we suffered through the abysmal slings and arrows of an administration steeped within the radicalized fires of Saul Alinksy, and then bloviatingly shotgunned towards Arizona, for caustic effect. But Pitts' main problem, according to the gist of his article, was the photo in which Brewer holds her finger, both up and perilously near the revered visage of our "narcissistos plenteous," being the ever pious Obama, himself , and Pitts wasn't alone. In fact, most of the left-leaning Axis Press went into paroxysms of apoplexy over the tarmac meeting, almost as if the Governor had flung her shoe at the President. And you certainly must remember the Media's outraged reaction when that shoe-flinging thingy happened to Bush. Well, Ok, maybe outraged is a bit of a stretch, how about, um, I don't know, malevolent glee, perhaps?

At any rate, according to Gov. Brewer, her response was based upon the fact that she "felt threatened" by the President, as he charged off the plane, upon seeing her, and and got straight up into her face. Here, Leonard Pitts indicates that "she thought the scary black man might hurt her" followed by Pitts' angst personified quote of *Eye-roll here*:

"it's a good thing he didn't follow her onto an elevator, she might have maced him".

The "C" Word

Predictably, infantile racial allusions aside from Pitts, this criminal fear he speaks to is culturally well-deserved, I must add, but still, a thing which we morosely expect from Pitts at this point fails to surprise. Our countering point on the other side of the argument, however, would be, "who can blame Brewer for feeling threatened, at this juncture?" I mean, the entire state of Arizona has been legally threatened by the President, as earlier stated, in fact. But then, why did the Pusillanimous Potus get up into the Governor's lovely little face in the first place?

Well, now that's where it gets even more interesting. You see, Obama took extreme issue with the Governor for her having written a number of disparaging remarks in her book titled, "Scorpions for Breakfast," apparently the worst of the remarks was the slanderous rejoinder that everyone dreads even worse than the "N" word. In fact, Brewer actually loosened the slanderous "C" word on the President, which, as everyone knows, is a very, very extreme insult. Confused yet? I know, you're trying to figure out which four letter words starts with "C," and no, it wasn't that one.

Give up yet?

"Condescending" was the word in Brewer's book that set the President's temper off like a rocket, and who can blame him? I mean, Gov. Brewer should come and read our vast collection of articles, from top to bottom, if she would like an extreme personal trainer on how to artfully administer a meaningfully sarcastic label or accurately acidic rejoinder to Obama, for his ongoing authoritarian Leftist abuses. No doubt, the president was quite angry that Brewer, a sitting US Governor of the political class, administered such a lamely watered-down adjective to him. The overall lessening in America's increasingly weakened satirical qualities in addition to economic, from the media and beyond, must truly try Obama's audacity detector, I mean he wrote a book on the subject, right?

At any rate, when most of America heard about this, outside of the media, the response was a deafening outrage against Brewer. In fact, here is one of the most extreme examples yet, but be forewarned:

Pitts then moves into the nexus of his article concerning President Reagan's 1984 campaign ad titled, "Morning in America," which Pitts correctly states " symbolized an era. " Now, at this point, we must indeed freeze in shock ,at what the Liberal Pitts is telling us concerning his views on Reagan and the Conservative movement of the early 80's. Here Pitts states that Reagan restored "a sense of vibrant optimism" after "Carter's malaise and Nixon's crookedness." But Pitts goes on to then state that, thirty years later,

" as Reagan's putative political offspring attempt to claim his mantle, it is obvious that none of them is Reagan. But the most glaring deficit is embodied in that picture."

Ahem, say what, Mr. Pitts?

So, in an anti-intellectual leap of all leaps, Pitts somehow tries to make his point that the powerful Leader of the Free World, in Obama's towering over a petite little Governor from Arizona, on the basis of being criticized by that same Governor, somehow represents the lost legacy of Reagan to Conservatives? All cupidity aside, for my part in this case, it would be my contention that the photo of Brewer standing up to her oppressor, in Obama, fully represents the indomitable spirit of Reagan and his ability to overcome, against all odds, anything seemingly thrown against him. Truthfully, what if Jan Brewer had been a black woman, Mr. Pitts? Would we have then seen a column from you about how an "almost White man" was trying to intimidate a Black woman because of her constituency being powerfully oppressed by the penultimate authority in the US, while simultaneously moving against written Federal law, and against the people's intent, no less?

Probably, is the answer, that is, if Pitts had even decided to pay such a thing his racefully ardent, but limited span of attention, Messianic hero, that Obama is, to Leonard Pitts, aside.

Pitts goes on to tell us how "cranky and dyspeptic" Republicans are these days, and then lays out yet another list of ridiculous reasons as to why this must be so. But Pitts then goes on, as a Liberal, to explain to us Conservatives, why the period of Reagan, and his optimism, was such a wonderful thing. Pitts then pontificates, that "the Republican brand has curdled in the ensuing 30 years," since Reagan and

"the party that once sold hope has instead become a party of grouchy codgers yelling at the future to get off their lawn."

For those few that actually have a lawn left to defend, no doubt. Here, Pitts proves, beyond all plausible explanation, how woefully inadequate his understanding of the times that we live in now actually are.

The Glamourer in Chief

America, in fact, has moved so far away from the Conservatism of Reagan that we may scarcely be able to find our way back to those days of hope until something both bold and revolutionary is done and rather quickly. Pitts would like us, being the Conservatives of America, as in olden days, to simply shut-up and live our lives, while the Republican Moderates and the ilk of Obama's ruinous Liberal rule take over completely and drive this nation finally over the edge, never to find its way back.

Under the leadership of Pitts' hero, Obama, the Statists will invariably continue to gamble away America's future, but only for the immediate advantage of today's fleeting comfort, which is rapidly ebbing. You see, as it is, Mr. Pitts, there is no true hope to be found under the current status quo, and there will be no true hope in our future, if that paradigm remains in place, and it's simply that simple.

You ask us, the true Conservatives, to somehow find our joy of old in an artificial dream that has been glamored onto much of society by none other than the avowed master of America's twilight, that being Barack Hussein Obama, himself. To be sure, this ridiculous business about managing the decline is completely unacceptable to us as Conservatives, and must be fought back to its conclusion, one way or another. We will not go gladly into that dark, dark night, Mr. Pitts, it's just simply that simple.

Pitts goes on to facetiously now accuse heartland Americans of being the party

"unable to process the sense of dislocation, the loss of primacy and privilege our present demographic path portends. Thus it has become the party of resentment and resistance, the last stand against racial, religious, cultural and sexual upheaval, the Alamao in the fight to forestall change."

And once again, if not predictably, Pitts maddeningly finds the sewing needle of race in what has become the Liberal's haystack of egregious errors. Pitt's, it would seem, has become nothing if not a scratched and damaged phonographic record , the stylus stuck in a deep and inescapable rut of a never-endingly repetitive phrase of racially demotivated angst. This even while a black President issues media-approved, authoritarian decrees, one after another, from a throne constructed by a bunch of high-minded, egalitarian white guys over 230 years ago. It is actually Pitts who cannot conceive to ponderously move himself into modern times, despite having been force-fed enough change that he can believe in, to last a pathetically penurious lifetime.

It's Mourning in America; Twinkie With That?

Pitts, it would seem, simplistically believes in the flawed impression of a nation dedicated to white supremacy, and further being wounded at its decline, as the reason for Brewer's finger-wagging episode. Apparently, Pitts has either forgotten or never even knew of the true issues at play in the 80's ,nor what Reagan's true legacy was grounded within.

Pitts also tells us also that he actually believes that the candidates who are at play, now, within the GOP Primary would have been laughed out of previous elections. What is beyond amusing, here, is the fact that the very man Pitts seeks to elevate here, in Reagan, is the same man that each of the candidates have been emulating, almost verbatim. Pitts drones on in filling his Twinkie article with sweet-sounding but essentially empty content until he seeks to finally make his point at the end by stating this:

"Reagan would not recognize his party today. Morning in America is almost 30 years gone. It's high noon now."

Oh, irony of sweet ironies.

The Staging Areas of Liberty

All of this even while the mainstream media, and one of its slightly right of center powerhouses, has effectively communicated a non-existent taint of radicalism and racism against the Conservative movement that simply doesn't exist. Pitts is guilty, as is much of Liberaldom, the Establishment and its acolytes are , of blindly acknowledging mass convention without truly giving wing to the critical brand of logic and dissemination that once made this nation great, and will again.

Pitts' admiration of Reagan's Morning in America, and the ensuing twilight, is precisely the reason for the Tea Party's being born as a movement. Suitably, our recognition began with denial, that this decline and loss of Liberty could even be happening in our beloved country. But, that denial soon turned into anger, which prompted the protests and the like. But then the anger soon turned into bargaining, as in maybe we can keep some of our liberties intact, which was eventually thrown out in favor of a disquieted depression, marking the passage of socialized medicine in Obamacare. But after that stage, we accepted what was happening and began taking pains to correct it, as in Resolution, which prompted the sweep of Conservative victories in the election of 2010.

Finally, after resolution comes determination. Funny, it is, how we of the spiritual Tea Party movement are now being called dead, ineffective, scattered and all of those other wishful adjectives, which, quite frankly, is what we want you to think, for now.

Just remember one very important thing: Washington didn't cross the Delaware in broad daylight, band playing, and flags waving, nor will we.